Here is another take.

Assuming that we are discussing academic design research (not the  
research that normally occurs in professional design practice)
then the most common artifact of design research is the academic  
article.

Of the examples you listed from other fields, it is probably most  
closely aligned in structure and form to the ethnographic monograph,  
but tends be of a different length (it is shorter) and references a  
different body of theory (though there are examples of design  
research that are theoretically situated within the discourses of   
cultural anthropology)

Of course there are other kinds of artifacts, just a film is a kind  
of artifact for some in cultural anthropology.  I in no way am making  
the claim this is the only or the best.  I offer the academic article  
as, in my experience, the *most common* artifact of academic design  
research. I make the offer based on the fact that this is the primary  
format used for the sharing and referencing of design research within  
academia:  publishing and presenting research in the form of papers.

Carl

On Jan 31, 2008, at 10:05 AM, Tunstall, Elizabeth wrote:

> Greetings group,
>
> I thought I would introduce a new topic.
>
> Context:
> I am writing a comparative paper on the questions, assumptions,  
> methods,
> and evidence (Barnard 2006) of design practice, anthropology, design
> research,
> and design anthropology. Ken and Klaus’s discussion was great for my
> thinking about the underlying assumptions (epistemological stances)  
> of each
> discipline. I have said for years that the reasons why my design  
> colleagues
> occasionally drive me crazy, and vice versa, is that I operate  
> under an
> empiricist philosophical tradition while they operate under a  
> rationalist
> philosophical tradition. Pragmatically, we find common ground,  
> especially
> when I use my empiricism to “prove” their rationalism. “Yes,  
> darling, the
> alignment between the ideal poster in your head and what you  
> designed has
> been proven by the users.” Yet,  the heart of any heated argument I  
> have
> with my colleagues is normally based on these different  
> epistemological
> stances. But I digress.
>
> Question:
> What is the “artifact” of evidence in Design Research?
>
> More Context:
> In graphic design, it is the poster.
> In industrial design, it varies on scale but it ranges from the cup  
> to the
> car. (Not alphabetically of course)
> In architecture, it is the blueprint.
> All of which find optimized distribution through the client and  
> competition
> prizes.
>
> Note: This is not to say that these are the only artifacts, but  
> they seem
> to be the ones in which you are assigned/encouraged to design in  
> order to
> prove yourself as a member of the group.
>
> In cultural anthropology, it is the ethnographic monograph.
> In physical anthropology, it is the “complete” skeleton.
> In archaeology, it is the visual representation of the  
> reconstructed site.
> In linguistics, it is the annotated script.
> All of which find optimized distribution through peer-reviewed journal
> articles.
>
> In design anthropology, I would say it is the “experience model” as
> pioneered by E-lab, Doblin and others.
>
> What is it/are they for Design Research?
>
> Dori
>
> References:
> Barnard, H. Russell. 2006. Research Methods in Anthropology. 4th  
> ed. New
> York: Altamira Press
>
> __________________________________________
>
> Elizabeth (Dori) Tunstall, PhD
>
> Associate Professor, Design Anthropology
> School of Art + Design
> University of Illinois at Chicago
>
> Associate Director, City Design Center
> University of Illinois at Chicago
>
> [log in to unmask]      email
> 312.282.2893        mobile
> 312.996.9768        office
>
> Blog at http://dori3.typepad.com/my_weblog/
>
> City Design Center
> 820 W Jackson Blvd, Suite 330
> Chicago, IL 60607

Carl DiSalvo, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
School of Literature, Communication, and Culture
The Georgia Institute of Technology